add_switch_on_enum_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key mechanic—creating one output pin per enum value—and implies a mutation by 'add'. However, it does not mention prerequisites like existing enum assets, graph context, or side effects such as needing to save the blueprint. The example also misuses enum_type with a numeric literal, which adds confusion.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a behavior note, an Args list, a KB reference, and an example. It wastes little space, though the contradictory enum_type example and the off-topic 'KB:' line could be tightened or corrected.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a mutating blueprint graph operation with no annotations, so the description needs to cover prerequisites and side effects. It provides a behavior explanation and a KB pointer, and an output schema exists for return values. But it omits what graph the node is added to, whether the enum must already exist, and what happens on failure, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three args with short explanations and a concrete example for blueprint_name, and clarifies node_position as optional [X, Y]. However, the enum_type guidance is undermined by the example value '1' instead of a string like 'EWeaponType', and blueprint_name is only described as 'Blueprint name' without specifying path format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Switch on [EnumType] flow control node.' It then explains the node's behavior ('Routes execution based on an enum value - creates one output pin per enum value'), which clearly distinguishes it from switch-on-int or switch-on-string siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: this tool is for adding a node that branches execution on an enum value. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as switch_on_int_node or say when not to use them, but the enum-specific phrasing makes the intended scenario unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.